site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   36187 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 24, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Inferential Distance: a Prologue

Over the few weeks I've come a across multiple posts here that have left me wondering "are we looking at the same event?" or less charitably "WTF has this commentor been smoking?", and this has gotten me thinking about something that I've been meaning to do since we made the transition to the new site, and that is to start consolidating the the things I've written under this pseudonym and that are currently spread out over a decade of time, and half a dozen different websites/forums, into something more manageable. This is not that post, but it is something of a prelude.

I see a lot of posts here from ostensible right wingers lamenting the progressives' omnipresence and inevitable victory, and I'm not sure what to make of them because that is not what I see, or what I hear, when I talk to the actual human beings in my life. If anything it's the opposite. The progressives are running scared. For every year since 1972, that's for half a century now, Gallup has run a poll on institutional trust that asks people to what degree they expect the media, the government, academia, etc... to report facts "fully, accurately, and fairly". The available answers are; a Great deal, a Fair amount, Not very much, and Not at all. Well the results for 2022 have just been released and people who answered "not at all" for trust in mass media is at 38%. This has been characterized by the talking heads, and many rationalists as "a crisis of sense making" but I don't really see it that way. Sounds more like healthy skepticism if you ask me.

Those that are familiar with me from my time on LessWrong and /r/SSC may recall that the concept of "inferential distance" has always been something of a hobby horse of mine, and I think this issue in particular illustrates why. You see. there is a lot talk here on theMotte about progressives "controlling the narrative", "twitter being the wellspring of culture", "normies doing whatever the tv tells them", that to me seems absurd, but in light of Gallup's results makes a certain amount of sense. I don't think it's any secret that this forum, as a splinter faction of the rationalist movement skews wealthy, secular, cosmopolitan, college-educated, and frankly Democrat. While I could be wrong, I would be willing to bet that there are way more fans of Cumtown here than there are fans of Rush Limbaugh or Tucker Carlson. And with that in mind I think the fact that trust in the media seems to break pretty cleanly along class and partisan lines (70% of Democrats having a fair amount of trust or greater in the media vs less than 14% of Republicans) explains a lot.

You expect people to believe what you see on the news because that's normal where you're from.

I expect everyone to roll their eyes at the news because that's normal where I'm from.

...and this points to the first of many fundamental disconnects.

Not to undermine your argument too much, but Twitter Wellspring guy isn't a conservative.

I see a lot of posts here from ostensible right wingers lamenting the progressives' omnipresence and inevitable victory, and I'm not sure what to make of them because that is not what I see, or what I hear, when I talk to the actual human beings in my life. If anything it's the opposite. The progressives are running scared. For every year since 1972, that's for half a century now, Gallup has run a poll on institutional trust that asks people to what degree they expect the media, the government, academia, etc... to report facts "fully, accurately, and fairly". The available answers are; a Great deal, a Fair amount, Not very much, and Not at all. Well the results for 2022 have just been released and people who answered "not at all" for trust in mass media is at 38%. This has been characterized by the talking heads, and many rationalists as "a crisis of sense making" but I don't really see it that way. Sounds more like healthy skepticism if you ask me.

All you have to do is visit some of the popular Twitter accounts--Cernovich, Musk, etc.--to see that wokeness is not that popular, but anti-woke sentiment and having a popular anti-woke podcast , as Rogan does, is not the same as power. The progressives are losing the narrative online, but they still have a decent grip on hiring, government, media, colleges, etc.

I would be willing to bet that there are way more fans of Cumtown here than there are fans of Rush Limbaugh or Tucker Carlson. And with that in mind I think the fact that trust in the media seems to break pretty cleanly along class and partisan lines (70% of Democrats having a fair amount of trust or greater in the media vs less than 14% of Republicans) explains a lot.

One of them is dead and the other one is more of an economic populist than an old school '90s culture warrior. I think the Fox News brand of conservatism that reigned in the 90s and early 2000s lost popularity because of changing demographics and tastes.

I think the Fox News brand of conservatism that reigned in the 90s and early 2000s lost popularity because of changing demographics and tastes.

...and I don't think it has lost popularity at all, it's just not online, or in the news.

...and I don't think it has lost popularity at all, it's just not online, or in the news.

And if a conservative screams in the forest, does he make a sound?

Yes, next question.

A long time ago, in the mid-'90s I worked in a shop fabricating windows. My co-workers were ex-amish, hardcore christians, lifelong contractors and builders. Rush Limbaugh was the preferred shop radio channel. While I don't agree with much of Limbaugh's policies, I did find his show charming and interesting, as political demagoguery goes.

It was an article of faith among these men that the "liberal media" systematically discriminated against people like them, their politics and misrepresented their views. And mostly, they were right, at least in a vague way. This mistrust goes back a long way, but it definitely got ramped up massively under Trump.

And before anyone points out the obvious, yes, of course Fox and Limbaugh or Hannity or Tucker are all doing the same thing from the other side. But anyone can see the power differential between Fox and........everything else at the major media level. More interestingly, there's a whole parallel media infrastructure being built out on the right over the last ten years to match what the left had been doing all along. Creating an entire media ecosystem that can do what mainstream media does, circle-jerk reference their way to "legitimacy". A lot of money got dumped into this, setting up foundations and jobs and funding for twitter/instagram warriors, various news websites of smoothly increasing sketchiness. The right is building a war machine for the culture war, because the regular culture got turned into one against them. They're fifty years behind and they know it. They don't have access to the most educated and talented thinkers, they know that. They do have the sillier shit that the left is dreaming up with their near-monopoly on the mainstream of culture. It magnifies some of the more marginal areas of left-wing politics beyond their actual importance. This can be both because the left is obsessed with their intra-mural fights, and because the right is obsessed with pointing at the resulting wackiness as indicative of the general nature of the left as a whole.

Now, as manifested in this very forum very much downstream of some minor twitter drama with the NYT about an obscure blogger who was subsequently bullied a bit and then sequestered on substack with a nice little gig writing technical stuff just so long as he avoids his spicier takes on politics and culture. A transitory thing in the great scheme of things, but thousands of us had to move our digital home several times because of it.

For what it's worth, I feel like I'm drowning in woke, but mainly due to my American FAANG company. And I grew up quite left wing (I walked a strike line with my parents when I was child, I went canvassing with them for the NDP). I still consider myself liberal, and believe a social safety net is a good thing (while still be a fan of regulated capitalism). I did grow up fairly poor, which has shaped my attitudes to some degree (e.g. made me a fan of meritocracy).

I'm doing pretty well, but I was lucky and am fairly old. I worry for my sons, and the madness and reality-denying of the Identarians really does set me off. They so often seem to do the opposite of what they preach. And I do see real unfairness at my work.

This resonates. If the general culture was so oppressive toward white males what I should be seeing is my friends, most of whom are white males and more successful than me, doing poorly and not understanding why and looking to me for the answer. After all, I'm the one that pays so much attention to politics.

The thing missing here is some kind of class analysis. Of course it gets tricky because if you're smart enough to see the class dimension to life - not as visible as racing attendant racial oppression - you begin confronting "you made your bed" problems if you're not particularly successful. So you have to acknowledge that and say "I chose to be less successful than I could have been in order to complain about the plight of everyone else who couldn't choose."

Cue the anguished comments about institutional capture and its consequences.

There is no alpha in measured responses. By definition a discussion forum will underrepresent the boring and the practical. Selection bias makes the news a hellscape, and as independent free-thinkers^TM we are obligated to feed such training data to our own biases.

Multiply anything by a large enough number and it becomes a crippling moral singularity. Millions of oppressed trans kids vs. millions groomed away from their parents! The deaths of countless fetal humans, weighed against intolerable social control of women! A red/blue state passes a red/blue law, and it cannot merely be liberalism in action; it must represent the spearhead of an existential threat, the beginning of the end for all one holds dear.

Except this isn’t true for the median-or-higher American, which includes most of this community. I can put my head down and stick with the social contract for fabulous rewards—money, amenities, a family, all vastly improved over my likely 1800s lot. I’m not spiritual, which is the weakest link, but even there we enjoy a détente derived from centuries of liberalism.

This is what the Kulaks of the motte are discounting. Riots and stochastic terrorism are rare and unpopular because life is pretty good. It’s easy to discount problems exponentially with distance, just like most people do for the broader spectrum of suffering. It may even be morally correct.

Believing the news is normal. Eye-rolling at the news is also normal. Casual xenophobia is normal, as is bending over backwards for capitalism. Tribalism is perhaps the most normal of all. Remembering this offers a lot of predictive power over competing models of doomsaying. Ideological impositions rarely survive competition with the deep-set urge to strive for one’s own.

I’m getting back to work.

This is what the Kulaks of the motte are discounting. Riots and stochastic terrorism are rare and unpopular because life is pretty good. It’s easy to discount problems exponentially with distance, just like most people do for the broader spectrum of suffering. It may even be morally correct.

Believing the news is normal. Eye-rolling at the news is also normal. Casual xenophobia is normal, as is bending over backwards for capitalism. Tribalism is perhaps the most normal of all. Remembering this offers a lot of predictive power over competing models of doomsaying. Ideological impositions rarely survive competition with the deep-set urge to strive for one’s own.

Oddly enough I agree, which is one of the reasons I find myself rolling my eyes at both the news and the doomers.

The most sane take that the motte has produced

One of the things that we need to address is that those who lament on the progressives' in general here are not everyone is a 'ostensible right winger' but some are people that sees something that they think is strange and/or important enough to take the time to write a post. Just by focusing on a particular issue we all elevate the importance of that issue in all dimensions and communicate it in that way, but outside of this space it doesn't matter to most people, maybe not even to the poster. It is a bias that is included in all posts, we have all taken the time to observe and focus on an issue enough to write a comment on it.

If anything it's the opposite. The progressives are running scared. For every year since 1972, that's for half a century now, Gallup has run a poll on institutional trust that asks people to what degree they expect the media, the government, academia, etc... to report facts "fully, accurately, and fairly". The available answers are; a Great deal, a Fair amount, Not very much, and Not at all. Well the results for 2022 have just been released and people who answered "not at all" for trust in mass media is at 38%. This has been characterized by the talking heads, and many rationalists as "a crisis of sense making" but I don't really see it that way. Sounds more like healthy skepticism if you ask me.

And this hasn't actually caused the progressive agenda to slow down one iota.

Indeed, it has accelerated in the past couple decades, even as institutional trust declined rapidly!

I think the point is that evidence that people are skeptical and resistant to institutional control is weakly associated with the conclusion "Progressives are in a materially weaker position than they were 50 years ago."

If the progressives/elites/establishment are less trusted now, they are still capable of exercising increasingly naked power to bring about the outcomes they prefer, and they are still capable of preventing red tribe from actually using the levers of power if they gain access to them.

Progressive voices, even when completely, utterly, batshit insane and called out as such, are still elevated and given positions of authority over policies that effect 'normal' people. Any nominally right-wing voice that crosses a few particular lines is nigh-instantly silenced and in some cases all their possible platforms are obliterated in one go (shoutout to Alex Jones as the canary in this coal mine).

Will this always remain the case? Not necessarily, but the idea that a progressive tide is somehow receding and leaving room for right-wingers to rise doesn't seem borne out by the evidence.

Indeed, it has accelerated in the past couple decades, even as institutional trust declined rapidly!

Evaporative cooling, as their influence declines so does their inhibition.

That their influence is declining/overstated is a core premise of the op.

Edit: more pointedly, it seems to me that what's happening is that the woke are exercising greater and greater influence on a smaller and smaller slice of the pie. You say the left controls the narrative, but controls the narrative for whom?

the plebs don't matter all that much.

and I disagree, I disagree vehemently. Real power, the sort that endures, that shapes history, requires buy in from the plebes.

The progressives are running scared.

This is guilt. They are still winning just about everywhere it matters, but they can see a path to their own defeat. The main concern for the vast majority of voters is the economy, which progressives really screwed up through lockdowns, money printing, vaccine mandates, and their obsession with impeding resource extraction. They know that if the Eye of Sauron is set upon them, their worst excesses especially regarding trans stuff in education will alienate them with voters they could usually count on e.g. Hispanics.

Well the results for 2022 have just been released and people who answered "not at all" for trust in mass media is at 38%. This has been characterized by the talking heads, and many rationalists as "a crisis of sense making" but I don't really see it that way. Sounds more like healthy skepticism if you ask me.

And with that in mind I think the fact that trust in the media seems to break pretty cleanly along class and partisan lines (70% of Democrats having a fair amount of trust or greater in the media vs less than 14% of Republicans) explains a lot.

They asked the wrong question. Conservatives have just succeeded in redefining the term 'the media' to only refer to outgroup institutions, but that doesn't mean ingroup institutions don't exist. It's safe to bash 'journalists' and the 'media' because to them it categorically excludes their preferred sources of news.

Conversely, if your question was 'Do you expect Libs of Tik Tok/conservative talk radio to report facts fully, accurately and fairly' your Democrat and Republican numbers would flip.

Conversely, if your question was 'Do you expect Libs of Tik Tok/conservative talk radio to report facts fully, accurately and fairly' your Democrat and Republican numbers would flip.

Oddly enough think this illustrates my broader point. I think that if you asked the average Republican if they expect Libs of Tik Tok or conservative talk radio to report facts fully, accurately, and fairly, the answer would be "no, of course not" because that was never the expectation. That's part of the wider inferential distance.

It's safe to bash 'journalists' and the 'media' because to them it categorically excludes their preferred sources of news.

Leftists are just as eager to not treat NYT and Fox News as purveyors of the same product. Cite to a redditor a claim by using Fox News, and they will not accept it, but they would were it WP. They will also likely to include that talking point that FN is "entertainment".

Thus it seems unfair to single out conservatives for insisting on a distinction, when their political enemies also agree one exists.

NYT:WSJ as MSNBC:fox

You're correct insofar as democrats aren't nonpartisan saints, also dislike outgroup media and have their own criticisms of red tribe media.

You're incorrect insofar as the politicians and base of one party are much more vociferous in their criticisms of what they call the mainstream media, of CNN and 'the failing NYT,' of fake news and the Washington Compost, sleepy-eyed Chuck Todd, the dying WSJ, 'Dumb as a rock Sour Lemon Don Lemon,' and so on and so forth. I suppose about 8 years ago I can remember people saying 'Faux News.' I can remember some measured comments from Obama bemoaning conservative media and echo chambers, but it really pales in comparison, doesn't it?

We can talk about why that is, and I don't think it's because my outgroup are moral monsters, but it doesn't change the fact that it is.

I think this really undersells the cultural impact on the ground level. Perhaps it somehow elides respectability because of how much was driven by the Daily Show, but for a lot of regular Democrat types I encounter in real life, watching Fox News is seen as appalling.

I suppose about 8 years ago I can remember people saying 'Faux News.' I can remember some measured comments from Obama bemoaning conservative media and echo chambers, but it really pales in comparison, doesn't it?

Fox News is apparently "uniquely damaging." Activists trying to block Fox from getting any ad revenues get sympathetic write-ups in nationally-funded media. "Civil Rights" groups try to get the hosts of popular programs taken off the air.

And that was just the first page of one google search.

Well the results for 2022 have just been released and people who answered "not at all" for trust in mass media is at 38%.

While these are mostly Republicans, a substantial minority are Democrats and "liberal" independents who don't trust the media because they aren't shilling hard enough for the left. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

Well the results for 2022 have just been released and people who answered "not at all" for trust in mass media is at 38%.

What are those 38% going to do about this though? Vote for a dissident candidate in the presidential election? That was already tried before, with zero results. If they voice their views openly, they'll get dismissed as QAnon cultists, potential terrorists, Nazis etc. They may get doxxed, their bank account frozen etc., and they know it. This is what it means to be ruled over by your enemies. And yet you claim that "progressives are running scared"?

What are those 38% going to do about this though?

What makes you think something has to be done? Why concern yourself with the enemy's labels? Being "ruled", by your enemies or otherwise is a state of mind.

What makes you think something has to be done?

That having trustworthy mass media available to you is a self-evident normal human desire in a modern civilized society.

Being "ruled", by your enemies or otherwise is a state of mind.

That's what Winston Smith thought. He was wrong.

That's what Winston Smith thought. He was wrong.

Tell me that you completely missed the point of 1984 without using those words.

And yet to the people of only two generations ago this would not have seemed all-important, because they were not attempting to alter history. They were governed by private loyalties which they did not question. What mattered were individual relationships, and a completely helpless gesture, an embrace, a tear, a word spoken to a dying man, could have value in itself. The proles, it suddenly occurred to him, had remained in this condition. They were not loyal to a party or a country or an idea, they were loyal to one another. For the first time in his life he did not despise the proles or think of them merely as an inert force which would one day spring to life and regenerate the world. The proles had stayed human. They had not become hardened inside. They had held on to the primitive emotions which he himself had to re-learn by conscious effort.

Internal vs external loci of control, where does yours lie?

As long as we're not disembodied beings of pure thought -- and perhaps even if we are -- we have an external locus of control. That was the lesson of Miniluv and Room 101. Maybe they can put rats on your face. Maybe they'll turn your family against you, as with the story of vaccine-fanaticism elsethread. Maybe they'll take your children away if you don't submit. Maybe they'll just shun you and require everyone else to shun you too. Maybe you think you can remain free within your own mind while outwardly submitting, but I suggest you can't -- once they've got you by the balls, your heart and mind will follow.

As long as we're not disembodied beings of pure thought -- and perhaps even if we are -- we have an external locus of control.

Yoda: ...and that is why you fail.

Winston Smith is weak, he craves comfort and approval, and he lacks those "primitive emotions" and "helpless gestures", that would otherwise ground him. He betrays Julia, not because of some some law of nature but because that is who Winston is. He was always a creature of the party. He's not a character you're supposed to emulate, or aspire to. He's a character you're supposed to feel sorry for. He's an answer to the question of "how does this happen?"

A man who can not control himself will inevitably be controlled by another.

Have you never had anything for which you were prepared to lose everything?

Winston is weak, and he thought he was strong. Julia, too, was weak. But everyone is; everyone can be broken. Room 101 has an answer for everyone.

Have you never had anything for which you were prepared to lose everything?

How would I ever know, without actually losing everything? Winston thought he did, until he cried out "Do it to Julia!"

everyone can be broken. Room 101 has an answer for everyone.

You tell yourself that to salve your own ego, much as Winston did, but does it?

I get the impression that you completely missed and/or glossed over a good chunk of the book.

More comments

Orwell's whole message was that there's always something that will break you and sweep all your bluster and stoicism away. What's in the room is different for every person, but it will always be there. And the total state will find it regardless of cost, because by its nature it has to dominate and destroy the individual.

If you want to die free with your ideals unbroken, you'd better have saved a hand grenade for when the time comes.

You and I must have read very different versions of 1984 then. Winston's' resolve breaks because it was brittle, shallow, and never firmly held to begin with. Orwell's message is not that the party and O'Brien are right, its don't be like Winston. Don't fall into that trap. Don't let go of your humanity.

More comments

The progressives are running scared.

This is (aside from the Title VII/IX parts) just a variation of "I'm feeling unsafe". Claiming to be scared is more effective at getting obedience and working up a mob than not claiming to be scared, so people do it. People also are able to work themselves into a frenzy and be sincerely scared, yet if being scared wasn't useful strategically, they would not have been that way.

I'm sure there were people in Nazi Germany who were genuinely scared of Jewish control of the world, as well as a contingent who claimed to be scared of Jews in order to have an excuse to hurt them.

Actually "running scared" would mean being scared enough to obey the right, not being scared enough to have an excuse to attack them in the same way they would anyway. You don't see people on the left saying "the right is so terrifiying that I advise not tearing down any statues because they'd beat us up (or even vote us out of office)" or "you'd better stop making movies with diverse casts, or the right will make your profits tank".

Actually "running scared" would mean being scared enough to obey the right, not being scared enough to have an excuse to attack them in the same way they would anyway. You don't see people on the left saying "the right is so terrifiying that I advise not tearing down any statues because they'd beat us up (or even vote us out of office)" or "you'd better stop making movies with diverse casts, or the right will make your profits tank".

We're already there man. It's already happening.

How's it already happening? I don't see anyone putting statues back up, and the diverse casting trend has only been slightly slowed.

That's a good point. You can see a clear example with drawings of Mohammed, where people actually are scared to do it because they are afraid of being hurt. Attacking the red tribe imposes almost no costs and in fact often has lots of benefits to those who do it.

You say 'this forum, as a splinter faction of the rationalist movement skews wealthy, secular, cosmopolitan, college-educated, and frankly Democrat' but also 'there is a lot of talk here on the motte about progressives controlling the narrative' and 'ostensible right wingers lamenting the progressives' omnipresence and inevitable victory'.

What if this forum just isn't terribly Democratic, even though it might be wealthy, secular, cosmopolitan and well-educated? That's why people complain so much about progressives. They're not just ostensible rightists, they're rightists. Just look at this week - we have:

  1. Criticism of male circumcision

  2. Criticism of Fetterman, a dem candidate as well as Biden somewhat

  3. Criticism of reducing meritocracy in special forces

  4. Fairly anodyne Canadian demographic predictions

  5. Mild criticism of some drama in minecraft modding where leftists are turfing out a vaguely rightist/anti-left modder

  6. Mild comparison between Griner and Jan 6 as political prisoners

  7. Mild suggestion that some/many gays would be happier in a heterosexual lifestyle

  8. Anodyne post about AI

  9. FcFromSSC suplexing rationalism and Scott's mistake theory, to great applause

  10. Discussion of weaponization of the FBI against the left in the past and the right today

  11. Discussion of Kanye's cancellation, with the comments going into what probably would be called anti-semitism by the people who are calling Kanye anti-semitic.

Now I'm distilling long posts into short summaries, so a great deal of nuance is lost. But I think we can conclude that this forum is not Democratic. There's nothing clearly pro-Democratic that I can see at the top level.

This forum is an offshoot of rationalism but it's a pretty distant offshoot. Yud-Scott-motte and now motte.org... And let's not forget there were a fair few rightists back at the start on lesswrong, the whole hbd and neoreaction crowd had some presence there.

In the spirit of Tulsi Gabbard leaving the Democratic Party because her pro-meritocracy, anti-war, vaguely anti-PC views weren't really tolerated there, I think we should admit that this isn't an anti-PC Democratic forum, a forum for observing the culture war from an ivory tower, or a 'gray tribe' forum (how could it be given the level of anti-crypto sentiment, given gray tribe per Scott is supposed to be nerdy, tech-savvy libertarians). I think this is a rightist forum. Maybe that's too close to consensus building, I don't know. Is it wrong to observe a tendency?

Fundamentally, the motte is for two things:

  • Gawking at/criticizing the latest thing the wokes did. Wondering whatever will the non-wokes do in their guerrilla war.

  • Peacocking elaborate or strangely alluring normie-repellent beliefs.

Hey, there’s nothing wrong with that. But that’s just what the forum is for.

It’s cool, we’re all here because we’re female peacocks. No hate <3

I think this is a rightist forum. Maybe that's too close to consensus building, I don't know. Is it wrong to observe a tendency?

No, but I think you're wrong. If you need a pithy and somewhat dismissive summary of TheMotte's political inclinations, it's "Anti-Woke." Not by design or mission, but that's pretty much where most of us are. "Rightist" is definitely a subset of "anti-Woke," but it is only a subset.

There are exceptions, there are definitely hard-right people here, and not a lot of hard-leftists, but this place is only "rightist" according to the woke definition of rightist, which defines anyone in opposition to them as rightist, if not fascist.

Does anti-woke also neatly cover lockdown/vaccine skepticism? I think that the most accurate characterization of themotte's politics is Contrarian.

I find this kind of consensus building more obnoxious than the kind where people are overtly culture warring. Stop trying to put me/us in a box with a neat label. It's my deepest political wish for both the steaming piles of refuse mascuradaing as political parties in the US to fail and be completely discredited. Attempting to classify me as Democrat or Republican based on which you model as most disliking the establishment is a waste of time. Democrats are the ones credibly trying to shut places like this down and thus my dislike for them is at the forefront, when Republicans are in power and try to shut this place down for republican coded reasons suddenly we'll all be modeled as nakedly democrat shills.

That's why people complain so much about progressives. They're not just ostensible rightists, they're rightists.

I wouldn't be so sure. There are definitely some right-wing people on the Motte, but I've always had the feeling that the Motte is more "anti-woke" than it is truly "right-wing."

I agree. As far as I can see we are at present predominantly right-wing. It's the thousand witches scenario many expected.

This place needs disagreement to work, so this situation isn't healthy.

I'd like to say my thanks to any leftists, centrists and contracontrarians who stick around us anyways; the Motte needs them and given current trends needs a few more of them.

Agree and I'd possibly like to see a second upvote/downvote button that people could use to indicate "well-argued" or something like that. Even if I disagree with their points I hate seeing our resident lefties get downvoted to 0 and dogpiled every time they make a post. I would like to think that would help, but there's also the future where it becomes an I disagree even more button...

The irony of your comment being downvoted, lol

I think it might help to have only the positive variant of the "good argument even though I disagree" button. Or maybe just a "this is a Quality Contribution" button with a public counter.

One issue with reducing AAQC to a button is that button will likely get pushed much more often than people currently go through the "report-->AAQC" process, which would add a bunch more content to the mod stack for filtering into the AAQC report.

Isn't that what upvote is supposed to mean already? Votes are supposed to mean "adds/subtracts from the conversation" not "agree/disagree".

In practice it’s more of a popularity marker. I think Southkraut’s version of the idea is better thought out

Agree and I thought this was the big issue with leaving Reddit. Recruitment of non in-group people versus evil corp control.

Recruitment in general seems to be a problem. Unsurprisingly, I suppose - everyone had seen that coming. What worries me is that, to my knowledge, we still don't have any solution for it.

I think spending time in a legitimately republican space, like, oh I don't know, Gab for an online example, will cure you of the notion that The Motte is regular conservatives. I don't know whether this is a libertarian space anymore, either. Personally I have my heart reflexively beating libertarian but the blood runs slow, so to speak. Everyone everywhere is more of a conflict theorist since 2020, and I have been awed and dismayed by the power of collective action.

The motte isn’t a place for regular conservatives, it’s a place for conservatives who are almost dysfunctionally highly cerebral

(Not an insult, that’s what makes it interesting to me)

it’s a place for conservatives who are almost dysfunctionally highly cerebral

I suspect that the number of sincere conservatives on the motte could be counted on a single hand. The utilitarians, libertarians, accelerationists, and neo reactionaries are enemies of tradition just as much as the woke are.

In other news, “communalist libertarian market socialist” on Reddit is convinced that the “communalist libertarian market syndicalists” are actually the real fascists.

More accurately it doesn't really matter what particular brand of fully automated luxury gay space communism you espouse, you're still a fucking commie.

I mean, if that really is what most of the userbase here is, then, to ask the rhetorical question: why are we here and not still on Reddit?

Exactly

You seem to be under the impression there is a meaningful difference communalist libertarian market syndicalists and communalist libertarian market socialists in the eyes of someone who is not a communalist not a libertarian nor particularly fond of markets.

The narcissism of small differences is still very much narcissism.

More comments

I wasn't saying this place is a Republican forum or a conservative forum, merely that it wasn't Democratic and was rightist. You can be right-wing without being conservative. My reply was to a post saying that this place sort of was Democratic.

It is though. Sure the Democrats here are more Andrew Yang flavored than Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi, but what the average commonetor here certainly isn't is Republican or even Republican-leaning Independent.

Yeah. I will grant there aren't many progressives in there, and there were already precious few on the subreddit.

Uncharitably, I'd ascribe that to most progressive beliefs and arguments simply not holding up to basic scrutiny outside of a forum where they can generate the appearance of consensus through sheer numbers. The bog-standard "crime and poverty are due to oppression/discrimination/environmental factors alone" progressive position collapses into an absolute shambles when it runs into the hard data around genetic effects et. al., EVEN if we decide to leave race out of it entirely. Once that crashes down, they have very little else to hide behind when challenged on a particular progressive policy's failure.

More charitably, it would be extremely frustrating to have to define your exact position and how it differs from the normies and weirdos and extremists that most people hear your belief system from over and over again when you interact with a crowd of people who don't share your priors. There's enough 'flavors' of lefties that one lefty could come in with a particular take and get rejected because they read like a standard progressive when they in fact have more nuance or have a different basis for said belief.

I hope that this forum isn't now the one with the implicit consensus due to overwhelming numbers.

But I've gotten sufficient pushback on some of my zanier takes that I don't think we're an echo chamber just yet.

Uncharitably, [...]

At least you realize you're being uncharitable. I like reading this forum in part to try to understand how the right thinks about their ideas/policies; I'm pretty sure "The Cruelty Was Never the Point" despite how often the left is unable to come up with a reason for a policy they oppose and conclude their outgroup must be evil science-deniers, there's just no other explanation. Pretty sure "evil science-denier" is unlikely to ever be a useful way to model a person/group.

I do want to drop in with what I understand of the left's point of view on things sometimes, but often there's just such a large inferential gap that I don't think I'm up to the task. And the inferential gap goes the other way, too, of course: sometimes when having in-person political discussions I try to steelman the right's POV based on arguments I read here and often have trouble not having it reduced by my conversation partner to "but the right is wrong about $FACT" (similar to your comment about how the left is obviously wrong about racism if you look at the facts).

We've done an epic's of navel gazing on this. I don't think what you're saying is true, or "truer" than a similar narrative you'd see on /r/politics about conservatives just not liking science.

The two competing theories common here are (a) It's group dynamics. People with relatively mainstream beliefs are less motivated to hang out here, more likely to leave due to evaporative cooling; and people do not bother discussing what mainstream beliefs they have here, because they have other places (b) modern leftism has become highly correlated with a brand of social justice ethics which does not countenance debating or platforming nazis, and people who subscribe to it are repelled by The Motte's basic constitution.

Do we have any out-and-out Nazis/White Nationalists?

I grant there are racists and fascists, but I don't think I've read anyone with either ironic or unironic 'gas the jews' positions.

Do we have any out-and-out Nazis/White Nationalists?

At least 3, that I could name.

Nazis no (at least not openly declared), but white nationalists, yes.

My position is something close to White Nationalism, and I’ve been open about that since joining the community. I know that there are others here who hold similar views, although I don’t know how many of them openly identify with that term or that cluster of identifiers.

It seems like you might be setting the bar for “out-and-out Nazis/White Nationalists” very unreasonably high, if “gas the Jews” is the cutoff point. I don’t know a single person, even in the most “extreme” White Nationalist spaces I frequent, who would advocate a repeat of the Holocaust. Obviously that’s not what qualifies someone as a White Nationalist.

When you say 'repeat the holocaust,' do you mean the literal methods by which the extermination of Jews was enacted?

or do you mean you also wouldn't support a systemic and sustained effort to remove persons of Jewish heritage from any position of authority, power, influence, or wealth and to exile them completely from your country?

Because I'm capable of distinguishing between "Nazis," "White Supremacists," and "White Nationalists" to the extent a person only holds some views but not others.

A white nationalist who supports allowing white persons to have a nation in which they are allowed to exist and to exclude other races and defend themselves from enemies (kinda like Israel) is different from a White Supremacists who ALSO believes in the inherent inferiority of other races is different from a Nazi who believes all that AND that Whites/Aryans should rule over all other races.

So I just wanna know if and how your pro-white positions are coextensive with anti-semite positions.

This forum is an offshoot of rationalism but it's a pretty distant offshoot. Yud-Scott-motte and now motte.org... I think this is a rightist forum.

It's probably worth noting that the people who make a habit of publicly sneering at rationalism have been accusing Yud-Scott-motte and now motte.org of being rightists, or at least crytpo-rightists, for years. The "rationalists" are furthermore in many ways the cultural inheritors of the cypherpunks--the community is overwhelmingly IT-adjacent by profession, or was last time we checked. The cypherpunk culture, in turn, was heavily libertarian, which is not the same as "rightist" even though libertarians in U.S. politics tend to get lumped in with Republicans more often than Democrats. The meme of libertarians who want gay marijuana farmers defending their private crops with automatic weapons is a much better description of the "tendencies" I see in this space than "rightist."

By curating a space where people can test their ideas in a broad Overton window, I do think we tend to encourage the discussion of political heresies, and since our U.S. cultural institutions are dominated by the left and/or the extreme left, the discussions here tend to be about things the left and/or extreme left would prefer to taboo--for the simple reason that other things can be discussed elsewhere, but many of these things can not. And I've gotten many great responses to my Fetterman thread that are clearly not pro-Republican, and I've gotten clear leftist pushback on the "groomer" discussion, too. That's a long way from what I see on genuinely "rightist" spaces.

Would a good metric be: how do people react to new accounts with no credibility posting shitty hard rightist takes, how do people respond to new accounts with no credibility posting shitty hard leftist takes?

The rightist takes tend to get "Nice try sneerclub." They get viewed as trolls trying to bait mottizens into saying something regrettable. "Yeah sure two day old account, you were just wondering about the holocaust/trans kids/armed rebellion against the state in favor of Christian Nationalism."

The leftist takes tends to just get downvoted to oblivion.

I'm not sure if you're saying that means anything, and I'm not sure it actually means anything either.

We're not going to see too many fake-left trolls because the right doesn't gain anything from saying "that forum is infested with leftists"--if they wanted to find a forum infested with leftists there are so many places they could go and they won't need to fake anything to do it. Also, regardless of whether they're sincere or not, the right has to support free speech right now, so they're probably not going to try to shut down a forum for being leftist.

As one of the few dyed-in-the-wool, practicing rightists on here (in that I have multiple kids and had my first in my mid 20s, come from a red tribe family, have been a practicing orthodox Catholic since a young age, never considered myself a leftist or "liberal" even in high school or college, etc) I don't think this place is "right-wing" in the way that normies would usually use the word. I know this because in the past I've gotten into tedious arguments with people about whether god exists, or why the family is important, the intrinsic value of human life, the existence of only two sexes/genders etc, all issues that most normal right-wing folks (i.e. not Twitter monarchists or whatever) would just consider self evident or settled. That would happen if everyone here were run of the mill right wingers.

There's a large majority of anti-progressives here that includes libertarians/Grey tribe people, transhumanists, and disillusioned leftists who just want to go back to "tits and beer" leftism. They all have way more in common with each other than they do with me in that they think that a lot of recent "progress" is good but there are just some problematic bits that have recently popped up, and they especially dislike the rise of the evangical Woke religion since it is an exclusive faith that refuses to make common cause with heretics. That's why there's so much bitching about woke stuff.

I can accept just about any progressive result, so long as I'm still allowed to speak freely saying why I disagree with it (if I even do). I am okay with higher taxes. I am okay with gay marriage. I am okay with trans people using the bathrooms that they want to. I am okay with... a lot of things! But when there does happen to be something I'm not okay with, it is a requirement that I be able to say so clearly.

The modern left has lost this, and so they've lost me. I don't know what I "should" call myself, given that I align with lots of progressive goals and am not bothered by many others, but the talk about speech creating unsafety or harm and therefore needing to be blocked HAS to go. An inability to talk about something is an inability to take a step back if you're wrong, and that can't be allowed to stand. We must be able to realize when we are wrong and correct course, or else we can become permanently wrong and never fix our problems.

Letting people say stupid and wrong and even hateful things is the price we pay for the ability to change ourselves for the better, because obviously the powerful will immediately abuse any system that silences people (even if ostensibly for good reason) to silence those who challenge them - and they can do that even if no real harm or hate was there, because they are the powerful and can bend the rules to their whims.

This is so completely blindingly obvious to me that I am baffled every time a progressive friend of mine says we need to deplatform so-and-so. And every time I try to explain, they refuse to entertain the possibility of abuse. "No, no, we will only censor the bad people, don't you get it?" No, I think you are the one who doesn't get it.

So I get off the train. I'll vote for measures and policies that do progressive things, but I won't vote for leaders who don't understand the value of free speech - lately, that means I don't vote for very many on the left. Maybe that means I can't count myself as a leftist anymore, but I certainly don't think it makes me a rightist.

The best way I've heard to frame it is Pluralist vs. Authoritarian. South of Center vs. North of Center is the other way I'd put the same thing...it's entirely different than left vs. right. Generally speaking, this place is mostly South of Center, with a few North of Center people around.

But yeah, I largely agree with you, and I'm against the anti-Pluralism that's floating around, left center and right. That's largely because I'm a policy wonk, and I think the details matter and I think because of that it's essential that we can actually discuss and disagree about the issues, and not break everything down into a power-based binary.

It is a "gray tribe" forum, in the sense that the "gray tribe" has never been nothing but blue tribe members who don't like (many) blue tribe policies.

Also to note: I can't remember the entire demographic profile of the old place, but there are quite a few people here (myself included) who are neither American nor resident in the US, and whose political allegiances hence can't be cleanly mapped onto a Democrat-Republican axis.

I'm not even American but as long as you're in the Anglosphere or West generally it sort of works.

In my own experience, there is a vast disconnect between perceived consensus on the "public internet" and perceived consensus in real life and private correspondence with people. (*) I think that what has happened, at least in part, is an internal schism caused by big tech's stranglehold on public spaces drowning out all dissenting opinions from the public face of the internet.

What you're left with is an illusion of progressive consensus, but the reality, to me, seems more like people are just moving on from publicly blogging their political opinions.

(*) Heavy disclaimer: I live in Germany, but primarily engage with the English-speaking Internet. So this rift is amplified by cultural differences between the US and Germany.

For every year since 1972, that's for half a century now, Gallup has run a poll on institutional trust that asks people to what degree they expect the media, the government, academia, etc... to report facts "fully, accurately, and fairly". The available answers are; a Great deal, a Fair amount, Not very much, and Not at all. Well the results for 2022 have just been released and people who answered "not at all" for trust in mass media is at 38%. This has been characterized by the talking heads, and many rationalists as "a crisis of sense making" but I don't really see it that way. Sounds more like healthy skepticism if you ask me.

I actually think this is incredibly dangerous trend but for other reasons. While people lose trust in various institutions it seems that somewhat parallel process also emerged when institutions feel less inclination to explain their policies to general public up to openly demonizing them. It was felt before, but I think it was fully shown during COVID management. What I see as a result is sort of depoliticization of general public, often because they do not see much point in being active. They will be marginalized, punished, made fun of and so forth. I see a lot of people adopting "passive aggressive" stance, where they increasingly care only for their private interests and private life and are willing to outsource political decisionmaking as long as establishment reasonably leaves them alone.

If you want to have some analogy look no further than Russia. You see huge depoliticized population who completely abdicated on any political activity and who actively refuse to either support or criticize the regime. They just want to be left alone, the political process is just some sort of kayfabe and there are people who even if let's say agree with Navalny's critique nevertheless think of him as some stupid idealist as opposed to some rolemodel. Instead of working toward overall political change it is seen as wiser to develop internal network of contacts and "fuck the system" using nepotism, corruption and other means only if they feel personally threatened - maybe even rationalizing this behaviour by claiming that they are all brave Kolmogorovs fighting against the system by stealing for themselves. There was even socialist proverb for this behavior: he who does not steal, steals from his family. This was the Soviet way.

As an example if let's say there is high crime and terrible schools in some city and somebody is robbed and/or child is ruined by the school system, the response is not to improve things, but just sneer on stupid leftoids who did not know how to operate a gun and/or that they should have homeschooled their kids. They should have known that the media is lying, that social networks are censored cesspits full of bots, that the government statistics are fudged and that it is all just one huge kabuki performance from elites to entertain the plebs in simulacrum of politics, everybody knows that one should not act upon it. The belief that the system is irredeemable and irreparable corrupt swamp is taken as a fact of nature and one just needs to navigate it to best of ones ability not falling into some muddy pit along the way. Especially while helping somebody clueless out there and getting dragged down, he deserves what he got. This I think is the feeling many people have and why even if some insane ideas "seem" to be losing, they can in actuality be entrenched. This race to the bottom does not exactly feel like winning.

As an example if let's say there is high crime and terrible schools in some city and somebody is robbed and/or child is ruined by the school system, the response is not to improve things, but just sneer on stupid leftoids who did not know how to operate a gun and/or that they should have homeschooled their kids. They should have known that the media is lying, that social networks are censored cesspits full of bots, that the government statistics are fudged and that it is all just one huge kabuki performance from elites to entertain the plebs in simulacrum of politics, everybody knows that one should not act upon it. The belief that the system is irredeemable and irreparable corrupt swamp is taken as a fact of nature and one just needs to navigate it to best of ones ability not falling into some muddy pit along the way. Especially while helping somebody clueless out there and getting dragged down, he deserves what he got. This I think is the feeling many people have and why even if some insane ideas "seem" to be losing, they can in actuality be entrenched. This race to the bottom does not exactly feel like winning.

I believe this is also the general idea behind the phrase "enjoy the decline" that some of the manosphere types like to say.

A lot of this, not saying all, is just related to the internet and its relative anonymity. In real life I think we all calibrate ourselves to be more ingratiating to those we're dealing with and even if we're comfortable enough to have an argument with someone it's often a much less appealing proposition than being able to downvote and move on or close the tab or block because of the oft-mentioned skin in the game. Even online I think if you consider someone a friend you're going to be less hostile, less likely to argue, more likely to calibrate your opinion toward theirs if you value them as a friend. Mistake theory is how we mostly code disagreements in these conditions and I think it's much more likely to be true if only for these conditions. Someone around me starts laying into the Democrats and I can nod and agree with the rest of them because I do. Someone around me starts laying into the Republicans and I can also nod and agree because I do. These are somewhat reflective of my opinion but they're also me agreeing with them because it's easier to agree and I'd rather have a conversation with someone than an argument.

As a pseudonymous internet commenter you're willing to disagree and let your inhibitions go. The interaction is not really about getting along anymore it's about winning and getting the praise and esteem that goes along with that. You'll sandbag a win because it's in your best interests to appeal as an underdog. You're more likely to tell the truth that you've kept secret from friends and relatives but you're also more likely to lie. Everything is amped up and so much of it is about getting attention/respect that Conflict theory is not only easier it makes sense because the goal is to win and you already know you're right. Progressives control the narrative, it's obvious because of reasons A,B, and C. These are all true. I also know that none of my friends or relatives agree with this but that's D and why would I include something that undermines my idea when I have data that agrees with it? I think there's a certain level of disingenuous rhetoric that everyone engages in when presenting an argument because they're trying to "win" and often that comes off as a disconnection or inferential step away from your reality but I think a good portion of it is never really turning off the war part of the culture war. In a way it's kind of a mistake theory for conflict theory, I guess but I believe people engage in this behavior, even unknowingly, much more than they'd ever admit. This is all me probably typical-minding but it's how I explain almost everyone ever sandbagging their own position/politics to appear as a more appealing underdog for some reason.

I think you're right and the more steps removed you are from someone and their knowledge the more likely you are to look at it and think that they're smoking bath salts. Society seems to be built more towards atomization and it's a hell of an easy way to create hundreds and thousands and millions more inferential steps between each other and our trust or acceptance of one another's knowledge. I also think that it's fair to call that disconnect reaction a natural heuristic toward not being fooled. And I think that heuristic instinct gets stronger the more it's proven correct and it's often easy to prove it correct with whatever data you want that supports your disconnected feeling. It might be right or wrong but I think it's safe to say that we mostly find it wrong even if most of the time it actually is wrong because most of the time the heuristic works and that disconnection from others is often a much stronger weight toward our eventual conclusion of accepting that information than piles of links to studies/articles even if the media and academia have done themselves no favors here.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats